Yea, but when compared to what people wanted and expected from him at that time, having the balls to put that out was punk. And just because it was done on strings doesn't make it "music hall"...it's actually a very dark song.
I think that both were inovative, but in different ways. Paul just seemed to want to do it in a way that was still conventional while John didn't care about conventions period.
--- the whole artistic point of the song is the tension between the music and the lyric, isn't it? --- i'm not sure i know what you mean by 'punk'. my lexicon may differ from yours.
"Freedom" almost makes me want to root for the terrorists. As much as I hated that album, I do appreciate that she pretty much admitted she sold out. She took the first version of the album she wrote and the label told her it would only be "Gold-ish", and she decided she needed a platinum album, since she was raising a kid and all. The sad part is, after hiring The Matrix and re-writing/re-recording the album from scratch, I don't think the album even reached gold.
Sting is a fiftysomething guy who is getting around to playing the stuff he wants to play, in a setting that suits his age and skills. Before he was the frontman for the Police, he was playing jazz in Newcastle clubs. It's the Police period that's out of character for him, really. I heard a radio interview a few years after Ghost In The Machine was released where Stewart Copeland mentioned that Sting "hates rock and roll. He hates loud guitars, and doesn't really get into the punk thing." This was the band whose members dyed their hair blond for a (Wrigley's?) chewing gum commercial back in the late 70s. As much as I love their early stuff, the Police era was their "sellout" era, playing something that was very popular for the time and making it more so- not what Sting is doing now. Mick Jagger and the Stones "keeping it real" at their age is what looks stupid. Bear in mind that none of the three (don't know what Henry Padovani's doing) is playing Police-style music now. That should tell you that the Police was a vehicle -a very convincing vehicle, and a fun time for them and their fans, no doubt- for them to become famous and wealthy and do other musical things. To others: Paul was pop with the Beatles. Not "play to the audience" pop, but his interests included music that was pop-sounding. Nothing wrong with that. Wings made absolutely wonderful music- it's just a shame that the difference between popular and pandering hasn't been illustrated enough for this band to get the recognition it deserves. I can't say many good things about his post-Wings compositions, though. It's been a long, horrible downward spiral for Stevie, hasn't it? He always had a lot of Top 40 in him. I think the difference is that when he was at his peak, top40, and pop music in general was great stuff to listen to. The mid to late 70s was the high point between creativity and popularity. Stevie never stopped making hits, but the criteria for hits changed, and he went right along with the changes. My Cherie Amour/Living For The City/Don't You Worry 'Bout A Thing/Superstition became Sir Duke/I Wish/Isn't She Lovely became Don't Drive Drunk/I Just Called To Say I Love You/Overjoyed. The first group was magnificent stuff, while the last group was pathetic, but it all sold bigtime. The biggest sellout of the Rock era is Elton John.
No, Elton John always sucked. "Circle of Life" is only marginally more pandering than the ballads from his early days.
Absolutely, in my book. Growing up I saw The Faces 4 or 5 times in concert and was totally blown away. IMHO they were what a true rock band should sound like. They had it all. When Stewart went solo and put out Maggie May, I thought...hmmm, not too bad. Then he started putting out that disco crap and I was crushed. It made me want to puke my guts out. He whored out his bandmates and with Ronnie Wood going to the Stones, the Faces were history. Damn you Rod Stewart, if Iggy Pop could keep his self respect, why couldn't you?
I just learned that those first couple solo records are really Faces records in everything but name. I believe that the backup band is the Faces, which could be part of the reason that they're not bad.
Stewart had signed a solo deal with another company shortly before he joined Faces. There were no signs that he would become as big as he would as a solo artist. Faces was a full band, not just one that Stewart used from time to time. Of course, Faces never managed to make another Ichykoo Park when Stewart joined.
Back in those days there was a revolving set of musicians that jammed on each others albums. Ian McLagglan, Kenny Jones, Ronnie Wood, Carmine Apeicce etc... Some of Rod Stewarts best work came with Jeff Beck.
Here's a twist to the theme of this thread: Is it really selling out when you're are creatively bankrupt? Is the artist supposed to just hang 'em up like some washed-up jock to, "preserve his legacy?" It's a fine line-who knows if Elton John or Paul McCartney are simply lazy or have run out of ideas? Perhaps my like for the Beatles has me biased on this, where my knee jerk reaction to Elton John is that the well ran dry and has moved into a more commercial, less serious path. BTW: Steve Winwood should not escape this thread unscathed IMO.
My first thought when I read the title was Elton John. Madman Across The Water- and Goodbye Yellow Brick Road-era John ("Tiny Dancer", "Levon", "Bennie And The Jets") are great pop songs, But if you had to pick out a singular moment when you could tell he was no longer interested in doing anything interesting, it would be the release of "I'm Still Standing", with the pastel-colored dancers video. Then came "Nikita", and he was long gone.
I have to disagree. Between 1970-1977, John was on his game, making some great music. He went into a decline after he decided to break his partnership with Bernie Taupan and didn't really pull out of it until they reunited as writing partners in the mid-80s. His stuff post '77 is spotty, but his early stuff is great. Just listen to Funeral For a Friend/Love Lies Bleeding for a good example.
Is now a good time to point out that John Lennon had a duet with Elton John in the 70's that reached #1? I thought this would be more about things like Lou Reed doing ads for Honda or U2 doing ads for Apple.
You can't include Sting's solo career. Sting is Sting The Police are The Police. I don't think they ever sold out.
If you take an artist that has had a 25-30 year pop music career spanning decades and changes in the popular music trends ( note Rolling Stones 1978 = Miss You ), you are bound to see responses to the musical environment, either radical or reactionary. Someone mentioned U2 and the aesthetic shock of Achtung Baby, after Joshua Tree. One of Elton John's first hits was "Your Song", which is a very simple pop ditty with a catchy hook ( I hope you dont mind/I hope you dont mind...). He was never a ground-breaking singer/songwriter, and his most iconoclastic album is probably Tumbleweed Connection, which came early in his career. Maybe the band that sold out the most was Moby Grape, a group that bombed artistically after their first record by allowing Columbia Records to dictate their career path. But they were guys in their 20s. What did they know? I think this thread is mostly about what artists we liked when they were fresh and which faded after time. Suck. Suck. Suck. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. Feel free to cut and paste whereever your taste is offended by the direction an artist has taken that violates your expectation of him ( them ).
Sadly I think Gwen Stefani sold out. Especially with her solo album. Hopefully No Doubt doesn't go in that direction. Although, they did with Rock Steady. Then again, everyone thinks No Doubt sold out with Tragic Kingdom.